Andhra Pradesh Court May 2003 Judgments
K. Upender and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Secretary, Re ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2003AP403; 2003(4)ALD1; 2003(4)ALT735
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. All these four writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order, as the question raised is the same. The writ petitions are filed questioning the common order of the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court dated 22-7-2002 in C.M.A. Nos. 126, 127, 128 and 129 of 2000. The appeals were filed before the learned Chief Judge under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ('the Act' for brevity) and the learned Chief Judge, by the said order, while affirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 47-A (1) of the Act, dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners.2. All the petitioners are brothers and are sons of one Sugnani. They purchased under four individual sale deeds residential property bearing municipal No. 3-5-1141/2 consisting of ground plus two floors with built up area of 873 sq. feet each with an undivided share of land admeasuring 149 sq yards each out of the total area of 596 sq yards. The sa...
Tag this Judgment!John Clements and anr. Vs. All Concerned and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD597; 2003(4)ALT645
G. Yethirajulu, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Family Court, Hyderabad dated 31-5-2002 in O.P.No. 604 of 2001 dismissing the petition filed by the appellants for appointment of appellants in C.M.A.No. 2009 of 2002 as guardians of a minor girl under Sections 7 - 10 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to permit them to take her to the United States of America (USA) and to adopt her as per the laws prevailing in USA.2. The appellants in C.M.A.No. 2009 of 2002 are the petitioners 2 and 3 and (P.2 and P.3) the appellant in C.M.A. (SR) No. 11727 of 2002 is the 1st petitioner (P.1). The respondents 1 to 4 (R.1 to R.4) herein are the respondents in the petition. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, they are clubbed and this common order is passed.3. The averments of the petition are briefly as under: The first petitioner is a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Act, 1350 Fasli (Act 1 of 1350 Fasli). The ...
Tag this Judgment!Gudivada Chowkadara Dukanadarula Sangam, Rep. by Its President, Sri A. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD256; 2003(5)ALT239
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. Gudivada Chowkadhara Dukanadarula Sangham (hereafter called 'the association'), a society registered under the Societies Act filed the instant writ petition seeking a declaration that the third respondent, Gudivada Municipality or its contractors cannot levy and collect any fee or cess for the foodgrains supplied by respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of supplying to the card holders through public distribution system. The members of the petitioner association are fair price shop dealers in Gudivada town. The facts are not in dispute. The fourth respondent herein got issued a legal notice to the President of the petitioner association informing that the fourth respondent became the highest bidder in the public auction conducted on 17-3-1997 for the lease of rights to collect cess in the municipal market areas and that he is not entitled to collect the cess at Rs. 100/- per lorry, Rs. 35/- per mini lorry and Rs.12/- per cart-load which will be unloaded within Gudiv...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. NizamuddIn Vs. General Manager and Appellate Authority Bank of I ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALD663; 2003(5)ALT170; (2003)IIILLJ92AP
ORDERR. Subhash Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, a gold-medalist in Bachelor of Arts, who entered into service as a Probationary Officer in Bank of India in the year 1972, filed this Writ Petition questioning the orders of the second respondent - General Manager, dated 20-1-1997 dismissing the petitioner from service and also the orders dated 7.11.1997 of the appellate authority confirming the order of dismissal and for a direction to the respondents to sanction pension on voluntary retirement to the petitioner as per Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.2. The grievance of the petitioner, which led to filing of the writ petition, is thus:3. The petitioner had completed his Graduation in Arts and secured gold medal. He was selected as Probationary Officer in the year 1972 in the Bank of India and he was also promoted as Middle Management Officer in the year 1981. The petitioner had served the Bank very sincerely and without any demur till February, 1994. He applied for extrao...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Ul Uloom Educational Society Vs. Mir Shahmat Ali Khan
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2003AP364; 2003(3)ALD723
Dotilal B. Naik, J.1. Respondent is the plaintiff who instituted O.S. No. 1207 of 2000 for perpetual injunction against the petitioner-defendant herein. He also filed an application in I.A. No. 118 of 2000 before the Trial Court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction which was dismissed initially by order dated 11-4-2000. Later, the matter was carried before the lower appellate Court in CMA No. 158 of 2000 which was allowed by order dated 18-9-2000. Thereafter, the matter was brought to this Court by way of Civil Revision Petition and this Court while allowing the revision, remitted the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh decision on the basis of material that would be placed before the said Court.2. Consequent upon the remittal order, the Trial Court took up I.A. No. 118 of 2000 and after hearing both sides dismissed the same on 25-8-2001. However, the Trial Court directed the respondent who is the petitioner herein not to make any further construction in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ch. Madan Mohan and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2003AP393; 2003(4)ALD6
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. An interesting question as to authority and power of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) to regulate the parking area and levy parking fee on vehicles parked thereat inside a private commercial complex falls for consideration in these writ petitions. Therefore, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners claim to be agreement holders/licensees for collection of parking fee from the visitors in commercial complexes like Amrutha Mall, Rahmat Complex, Aditya Enclave, Navakethan Building, White House and Divyashakthi Apartments, it is their case that as per the agreement/contract they have exclusive privilege of collecting parking fee from visitors who come to the commercial complex for their business as well as other needs. In most of the cases, it is valid for a period of one to two years and the licensee is entitled to collect parking fee on four wheelers and two wheelers as stipulated in the agreement. It is the c...
Tag this Judgment!G. Srinivas Vs. Apsrtc and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD18; 2003(4)ALT303
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not adding notional increments, for the period the petitioner was out of service i.e. from 3-11-1989 to 21-11-1991 as arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner by allowing the increments for the said period with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working under the control of the Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Manchiryal was removed from service with effect from 24-1-1990 after conducting a detailed enquiry into the misconduct alleged against him. Being aggrieved by the removal order, he had raised a dispute in LD. No. 209 of 1990 before the Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. The Labour Court after elaborate consideration of the matter held:'.....The explanation of...
Tag this Judgment!Bhakthavathsala Sukumar Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD25; 2003(6)ALT133
ORDERT. Meena Kumar, J. 1. Aggrieved by the orders of the first respondent dated 25.6.2002 wherein the petitioner was discharged from the services of the respondents 1 to 3 -Corporation on the ground that he secured employment by giving false information that he belongs to Scheduled Caste, the present Writ Petition is filed.2. The case of the petitioner, as narrated in the affidavit, is as follows:The petitioner belongs to SC Community and he joined in the organization of respondents 1 to 3 on 5.1.1980 as Clerk-cum-Typist under reserved quota meant for Scheduled Castes by producing caste certificate with serial No. 2/80-B3 dated 1.1.1980 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Salur. The respondents 1 to 3 got verified his caste certificate through the District Collector, Visakhapatnam as genuine one and as such he continued in the employment without any interruption till 25.6.2002 on which date he was discharged from service.It is also stated that in the year 1989, the respondents 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Dukku Labudu Bariki Vs. Sobha Hymavathi Devi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD138
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In all these petitions the election of Smt. Hymavathi Devi, i.e., first respondent in all the three petitions, to the 28-S.T.-Srungavarapukota Assembly Constituency in Vizianagararn District during 1999 A.P. General Assembly Elections, reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate, is questioned. Petitioners in E.P.Nos. 25 and 26 of 1999 are the candidates that contested the election on the tickets issued by Anna Telugu Desam Party and Congress-I Party respectively, and petitioner in E.P.No. 27 of 1999 is one of the voters in the said Constituency.2. The case of the petitioners, in all the three petitions, is that since first respondent is born to V. Murahari Rao, a Patnaik or Sistu Karnam by caste, which is a forward community, and his wife Simhachalam, belonging to Scheduled Tribe, she acquired the caste of her father, and so she is a Patnaik or Sistu Karanam by caste, and hence is not eligible to contest as a candidate from a constituency, which is reserved for a Sc...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Cements Limited Vs. Central Power Distribution Company of Andhr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALD405; 2003(5)ALT408
B.S.A. Swamy, J. 1. The A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission by its order dated 8th February, 2002 in O.P. No. 1 of 1999 directed the H.T. Consumers with Captive Power Plants (CPP) running in parallel with A.P. TRANSCO's Grid to pay grid support charges at 50% of the prevailing Demand Charges for H.T. Consumers on the difference between the total capacity of CPP in kVA and the Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) in KVA with the licensee and all other sources of supply. In case of CPPs exporting firm power to A.P. TRANSCO, the capacity, which is dedicated to such export, will also be additionally subtracted from the CPP capacity. Questioning the said order of the Commission, the H.T. Consumers with CPPs running in parallel with the A.P. TRANSCO Grid (hereinafter referred as 'CPPs'), who are the appellants herein, filed these appeals before this Court under Section 39 of the Electricity Reform Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred as 'Reforms Act'). Sri K.Gopal Choudary, addressing the arguments...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »